- Joined
- 6 Nov 2023
- Posts
- 4,134
- Likes
- 6,921
- Location
- Santa Barbara, California
- Name
- Sam
- Image Editing
- No
Oy vey. I give up lol.... too many interactions.Yes, that image was taken with a 5d2 I believe, which recognized it okay.
Oy vey. I give up lol.... too many interactions.Yes, that image was taken with a 5d2 I believe, which recognized it okay.
All, follow this graphic below for best results if you wish to UPLOAD your images. Both Ken's photos that gave him issues before are uploading and displaying the exif info just fine above. I used the Insert Image icon (looks like a photo on the top row) and NOT the Attach files paper clip in the bottom row.
View attachment 136259
Good to know about the timing, Ken. It is possible that the functionality of Attach files button was changed with the XF forum software update. I’ll do some checking on this.Here's one that I posted yesterday in the Digital Speed Challenge. Lens info was truncated there. Checking to see about now with the 'Insert Image' in the edit menu. View attachment 136263
Edit: Hey, it worked.
Edit 2: I first noticed this happening with the 'Attach files' button on Wed, 1/8 sometime between 15:55 PST (last good EXIF) and 23:41 (first truncated).
True, that's a fair point. I am personally more interested in the lens information on photos, and to a lesser degree, the camera information. If I see a photo that has some very specific characteristic, either the bokeh, or how it handles flare, or corner to corner performance on an UWA or whatever, the first question that comes to my mind is - what lens is that with. To me, having the EXIF info helps figure that out. But yes, I agree with your point that the EXIF tells part but not all of the story.Personally I have never understood the obsession with EXIF, it is of limited use and value. This thread was started because the EXIF was missing from a picture of a waterfall and someone asked the question “what shutter-speed did you use?” However, another factor that is just as important as the shutter-speed in creating motion blur is the speed of the water, but for some reason no one ever asks that question, even though it has just as much effect on the image as does shutter-speed.
Another example; a panning shot of a racing car. Motion blur is the result of shutter-speed and vehicle speed. A car travelling at 50mph and shot at 1/60 of a second will have exactly the same amount of motion blur as a car travelling at 25mph and shot at 1/30 of a second, or a car travelling at 100mph and shot at 1/125 of a second. But no one ever asks “what was the speed of the car,” the question is always “what shutter-speed did you use.”
If on the other hand you were to use the same shutter-speed of 1/60 of a second to photograph a car travelling at 25mph, 50mph, and 100mph respectively, all the images would have different amounts of motion blur in them.
If the images are linked to flickr, exif information is shown there if someone follows the link. Based on the comment below, that is true of other hosting sites as well:Yes my understanding is the EXIF add-on only works with uploaded images.
POTN managed to extract this from external hosting services but this was an ongoing issue for Pekka keeping up with the changes from those services. This method is not available to XenForo.
A possible solution is to auto uploaded embedded images, there may be an add-on for this.
Question is do members want this?
POTN managed to extract this from external hosting services but this was an ongoing issue for Pekka keeping up with the changes from those services.
Perhaps users and admins need to proactively provide feedback? Send them an email about what features you would like. Adobe, for example, updates their software but I was never solicited for user feedback. They may pay attention if I took the trouble to send them my suggestions.There does seem some significant level of frustration among other forum admins about the arbitrary and capricious nature of Xenforo software development, often (at least in the views of the admins) without soliciting user feedback/inputs. I haven't been doing this long enough to make hard conclusions regarding this, but this does seem like odd behavior (some may call it a bug).
I agree with your sentiment - but the shutter speed is nicely encapsulated in the image data, and can be extracted fairly easily/automatically - the speed of the car is not, and would rely on the shooter being able to estimate that accurately. So I also understand why the desire exists to be able to extract and display the info we know should always be there (unless stripped out by the poster). But asking for the other user-dependent info is also useful, if available.Another example; a panning shot of a racing car. Motion blur is the result of shutter-speed and vehicle speed. A car travelling at 50mph and shot at 1/60 of a second will have exactly the same amount of motion blur as a car travelling at 25mph and shot at 1/30 of a second, or a car travelling at 100mph and shot at 1/125 of a second. But no one ever asks “what was the speed of the car,” the question is always “what shutter-speed did you use.”
We therefore only use essential cookies to make this site work.
Optional cookies are needed to view embedded content - you can turn these cookies on and off as you please.